Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP

from the but-you-can-see-him-for-just-two-grand dept

While the entertainment industry thought that getting PROTECT IP approved was going to be a walk in the park, they've been taken somewhat by surprise at the level of resistance to the bill over the last few months. It looks like they're now trying to break out "the big guns." And, by "big guns" we mean out-of-touch millionaire old fogey rockers who have name brand appeal, but little actual knowledge. In this case, it's an op-ed piece by Don Henley in USA Today. Henley has become quite the curmudgeon over the past few years, lashing out at everyone for not giving him more money. A year ago, he was claiming that it's all YouTube's fault:

And Henley reserved particular ire for YouTube, which he described as a "fence" for stolen intellectual property. "YouTube is one of the biggest violators or copyright laws in the world," he said. "A tremendous amount of the content on YouTube is a copyright violation.... I'm not a fan of YouTube at all for their part in aiding and abetting copyright violations."

Given his belief that YouTube is a "rogue" site, his views on PROTECT IP are especially troubling. It appears that Henley really wants to shut down YouTube. Most of the article is a misguided, misleading or simply false attack on both Google and anyone, such as the EFF, who supports basic user rights:

Critics of this pending legislation need to be honest about the company they keep and why they essentially aid and abet these criminal endeavors. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a civil liberties group, claims such a bill would "break the Internet," while Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt says it sets "a disastrous precedent" for freedom of speech. No one has the freedom to commit or abet crimes on the Internet. Stopping crime on the Internet is not, as EFF says, "censorship." There is no First Amendment right to infringe intellectual property rights.

First of all, no, there is no First Amendment right to infringe, but no one has claimed that there is either. But PROTECT IP goes way, way beyond what Henley describes. He also fails to respond to the "break the Internet" claim, which comes from a group of very well-respected technologists who had a major role in building the internet's core infrastructure. Henley just brushes that off by pretending that Google just wants to keep "accepting untold advertising dollars from illegal online pharmacies."

But the bigger issue is that Henley totally ignores the points that the EFF has raised about the problem of PROTECT IP. He's right that stopping infringement is not censorship, but the bill is extremely broad and goes way beyond stopping infringement. In a weak attempt to do so, it advocates outright censorship with no due process.

In the meantime, if Henley wants to look at "the company anyone keeps," perhaps he should look at his friends who are supporting PROTECT IP. And we should remind Don Henley that not so long ago he was pointing out that piracy isn't a problem, and the real problem was the RIAA and the major record labels. Apparently he's changed his mind.

Oh, and if you'd like to see just how badly Henley is suffering from all this infringement in person, you can buy tickets to an upcoming Eagles concert for $2134 a pop. At least they set aside some "cheap seats" for the kids. The nosebleed seats where you can barely see the stage... those will run you a mere $116. Actually, that's just the list price, and you can't buy a single ticket at that price. You have to buy two. There are some (more expensive) tickets where you can buy just one, but then you have to add in the service fee ($21.65) and a delivery fee ($15). Amusingly, even if you choose to show up and pick up the ticket yourself, you still pay the delivery fee. So the absolute cheapest price you can pay to see Don Henley in concert, in the nosebleed seats will run you... $153.65. Yeah, but all that infringement is killing the music business, huh?

Eagles Concert

Re: Eagles Concert

$2K+ for some seats right by the stage sounds like "access" to me, so why the fuss? For a site that deals with economics, supply and demand seems to have taken a back seat to looking for a reason to diss Mr. Henley just because he happens to support some pending legislation.

Re: Re: Eagles Concert

$2K+ for some seats right by the stage sounds like "access" to me, so why the fuss? For a site that deals with economics, supply and demand seems to have taken a back seat to looking for a reason to diss Mr. Henley just because he happens to support some pending legislation

Huh?!? Not dissing him for the price at all. Showing that his argument is silly. He's obviously still making a ton of money, in part because his music is widely out there and people are willing to pay for exactly those scarcities.

If it was destroying the industry, I'd assume he couldn't charge such prices.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eagles Concert

No, you sort of skirt the issue in the previous comment. You scorn him up and down, and you laugh at him for making a profit using your very methods.

What you fail to grasp is that The Eagles aren't popular because of piracy, they are popular in spite of it. They came from a time where recorded music was valued and paid for by people who heard the latest song on the radio and wanted a copy for themselves. The Eagles aren't popular because of a youtube video or piracy, they are some LMFAO stupidity act, they are talented musicians who made music that people value enough to actually pay for, even today.

Quite simply, The Eagles don't need and don't want the "promotion" of youtube or piracy, and they should have the right to say so.

I tend to take the word of someone who has spent their career in the music industry (as an artist, as a producer, and such) over some rather opinionated valley blogger.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eagles Concert

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eagles Concert

So, just to sum up, The Eagles aren't popular because of how people hear music for free today, they're popular in spite of it. They came from a time where recorded music was heard for free some other way and, after hearing it for free, wanted a copy for themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Eagles Concert

Is this O.K. with you Mikey?

Not sure what you mean by "O.K." Am I supposed to not be okay with reality? That's kind of a bizarre title too. It's not the death of the industry they're showing, just the changing formats for music sales.

Asking if I'm okay with that is like asking if I'm okay with the fact that people used to talk in person, then they had telephones, then cell phones and now VoIP. It's what happened.

Re: Eagles Concert

his entire "argument" (if it can even be called that) is pretty much what a WoWforumer would call a "wall of tears", just one big loong lecture full of whining describing how horrible XYZ is, that it (infringement) needs to be "nerfed" into the ground and how whatever it is they have a fetish for that day (copyright) needs to be buffed into godhood because they are soooo poor how could people allow this to happen to them?? waaaaah

come to think of it, that's all the MAFIAA is, just one big wall of tears after another

Re:

Wow!

OMG. I'm not sure what happened, but I'm sure glad to hear that someone has gotten the message that infringement is not protected by the First Amendment. It was tiresome to listen to all of the astroturfers from Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy try to link themselves with Peter Zenger, Daniel Elsberg and Martin Luther King. I could just imagine the couch potato stuffing chips in his mouth while "sharing" some ripped DVD with tens of thousands of his so-called friends while saying, "Yeah, I'm not a thief. Sending a link is all about FREEDOM of SPEECH. I'm just like Martin Luther King."

Now I've seen plenty of user generated content shared easily by YouTube. It's a great tool that's certainly helped a few folks.

But let's not blind ourselves to what's going on. Take any big song from the last 40 years. Type the name into YouTube. There's close to a 100% chance that you'll be listening to that song within 10 seconds.

Now you can blather on about innovation this and innovation that, but as far as I can tell, the real innovation is that YouTube cut out the check out line. BFD. It's always easier to leave a store without paying. But that's not innovation.

If Google and YouTube were a bunch of cheap hippies that were just giving this to the world, it might be possible to feel like maybe there's some truth to the myth that all of the sharing is building a better world. But no. They didn't open source the code for YouTube.

Big Search is owned by BILLIONAIRES people. All of this FUD about ProtectIP is just astroturfing to protect BILLIONAIRES and the AD REVENUE they get putting ads next to music they didn't write, didn't record or really do much of anything to support.

So go ahead. Dream about how this is some digital utopia. It's just a more efficient way to screw the artists by giving them absolutely nothing and pretending that it's "cool".

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Are you saying the copyright owners don't get paid when someone purchases content through iTunes? I seem to remember Apple's value really taking off when they figured out how to bring content to the masses at a reasonable price on a device that was convenient.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

So you are saying then, that the music industry's main problem is that they're trying to make money from something that is actually the advertisement? If Apple is using the infinite goods (music) as advertising, in order to sell more scarce goods (hardware), and are being enormously successful in the process, would it not be sensible to assume that perhaps music industry is trying to sell the wrong product?

What you are essentially saying is that the music industry is displaying a failure to adapt to technology and a changing market and that they need to find the scarcity that they can sell and use the music as the advertisement (which is what it has always been).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

How they break even on iTunes? You're claiming they're selling music there at a loss, meaning the payments they're sending upstream to Big Content are more than they make from the song and are actually subsidized by the hardware? And you're saying this is 'bad' for Big Content?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

"But the gaping thing this gif doesn't quite get to is the fact that all this assumes that people need to own their music. As Spotify and even Pandora have shown, that might be the case at all--and the next music-format revolution might not be too far away."

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Bob,

You've made the mistake of trying to talk reason to a bunch of angry, immature children who don't realize - and don't care - that the music industry creates thousands of jobs - everything from law and accounting to electronics (microphones, speakers, guitars, keyboards, etc.) and truck driving. It's a huge job engine and the basis for all that commerce is the popular song. I really don't think that Mr. Henley is that worried about his own bank account, but he has a record of speaking out for others who are not as fortunate as him. The writer of this blog is obviously a shill of the EFF and it is laughable when he calls the EFF a "civil liberties group." All I can say is that the article and most of the comments about it are incredibly naive. Don't waste your time, Bob. These kids have a moral and ethical compass that is badly broken.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

"You've made the mistake of trying to talk reason to a bunch of angry, immature children..."

It's clear you're not a salesman, because this attitude simply reinforces my desire to NOT give any money to record labels. Artists yes, labels hell no.

"...who don't realize - and don't care - that the music industry creates thousands of jobs - everything from law and accounting to electronics (microphones, speakers, guitars, keyboards, etc.) and truck driving. It's a huge job engine and the basis for all that commerce is the popular song."

Good job ignoring all the independent (i.e. non-label) studies showing that the amount of money the music industry makes continue to increase. It's the labels that are losing out and few people other than lobbied politicians have much sympathy as the problem is almost entirely self-created. Not hard to guess who you work for.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Ya know, I ought to sue you for slander and defamation.
I'm a mature adult with a job who does pay for content that I value. So are a lot of the people on this site.
Guess what, we freely admit (at least I do) that we don't care that the recording industry has thousands of jobs. The market doesn't care how much effort and how many jobs went into your product/service. All the market cares about is, is the product/service worth me forking over our hard-earned cash? Except nowadays, we have to ask ourselves: is the product/service worth our hard-earned cash as well as our civil liberties?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

The writer of this blog is obviously a shill of the EFF and it is laughable when he calls the EFF a "civil liberties group."

Wow. That's about the stupidest thing I've read in a long time, and we see some stupid comments. I'm curious, how does one "shill" for the EFF? The EFF is a non-profit, civil liberties group (yes, it is). I don't agree with them on everything. In fact I adamantly disagree with them on some things. But I've never heard anyone accused of being a "shill" for a non-profit legal group before.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Don't know why this is such a mystery to you Masnick.

shill
noun
a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Seems like you could be a shill for Techdirt, EFF, YMCA, ACLU, American Heart Association and on and on. I couldn't seem to find a definition of a shill being an advocate of a point of view that you oppose. I don't have a copy of the Techdirtbag dictionary, though.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Yes, letting any industry fail is certainly not moral or ethical. We should obviously pass laws to make sure that current industries will always be the only industries because they employ people. Can't have anything or anyone new coming along and putting a few thousand people out of a job now can we? We must ensure that buggy-whip makers will always enjoy employment as buggy-whip makers for all time!

Re: Wow!

It's just a more efficient way to screw the artists by giving them absolutely nothing and pretending that it's "cool"./blockquote>

would YOU pay for something you could infinitely make copies of for free like it's a scarce resource with limited numbers?
no, not because you want to support the artist, but because they just slapped a pricetag on it?

besides, it's not the rest of the world's job to babysit and give royalty-welfare checks to artists simply for making art, they can take care of themselves, i wish some of them would start doing so instead of whining about filesharing there's plenty of info on how they can do that, all they have to do is GOOGLE IT

Re: Re: Wow!

Sorry. Development costs are just as important as replication costs. You're just being bamboozled by Big Search and Big Hardware to believe that paying the artists is welfare. It takes time, food and money to make movies, songs and art. You can dream and pretend that the price should only be determined by replication costs, but you'll just be duped by Big Search and Big Hardware.

Think about it. It costs NOTHING to toss a seed and duplicate some food. Yet tending this seed and getting it to market while the results are still fresh costs time and money. That's why we pay farmers. We don't sit around and say, "Gosh, the sun and the land did all the work. You're just looking for a welfare payment."

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

A++ Trolling

Best I've seen today!

Even that heart-felt farmers bit, wow. Brings a tear to my eye how you could possibly relate the fact that we pay farmers to not grow food in order to artificially reduce the supply thereby artificially raising the cost of said food so farmers can sell their goods for a high enough price to get by with music distributors having the same problem is an amazing coincidence as I think you've been correct, but not on purpose.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Actually, I didn't say anything about the weird subsidies from the Ag department. That's another rant.

Get with it, dude. Art costs money to make. It may not cost anything to duplicate, but if the artist doesn't get paid, the artist is going to need to get a day job and that means less art. It means a blander world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Given the tiny amount of actual "professional" artists out there, along with the tiny amount of material they produce compared to those who can also make money through other means, I don't think you would even notice a difference if they went away.

Furthermore, I don't understand this notion that working means less art. You act like if someone didn't have to work 40 hours a week, they'd just magically produce 40 albums a week. Most artists spend relatively little of their overall time creating, regardless of what else they do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Nope. Duplication and distribution is a small part of the art biz. Even in dead tree books and newspapers, the cost of printing is a tiny part of the price. Heck, even today you can order up a nice pile of hardback books for less than $3 a piece.

Why do books cost more than $25? Because the editors and writers need to be fed. Sheesh.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

I see now that we're dealing with someone who is so incredibly mathematically illiterate that he does not grasp the difference between "zero" and "nonzero". I don't see any point in trying to educate this inferior primate until he evolves into something approximating human intelligence.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Re: Re: Wow!

would YOU pay for something you could infinitely make copies of for free like it's a scarce resource with limited numbers?

Yup. Because I know that it costs money to make the first copy. Writers need to be fed. Film crews are expensive. There's a reason why it costs more than $100m to make a blockbuster and it's not because they're a bunch of coked-up idiots who are wasting cash. The first copy costs money and if they can't recoup their costs, they can't make the first copy.

I love summer blockbusters. I don't want file sharing to cut even a small part of their budget because I want the studios to have plenty of money to put into even fancier special effects and even more lavish sets. These cost money

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Every year, there are huge blockbusters. How long have movies been pirated? Ever since a portable recording device could be smuggled into a theater? Each year it gets easier and each year more infringement happens. Yet somehow people keep making blockbusters and we keep hearing about how they rake in 100's of millions on the first weekend. Not to mention all the money to follow the following several weeks, then worldwide release, then DVD, then streaming licenses, and then the good ones even have clothing, toys and all sorts of merchandise.

Let's not forget that people will still keep getting paid long after everyone who made the blockbuster is dead due to the length of copyright.

While for me, it's a matter of principle that I do not download things that are available for me to purchase, the argument of cost is a hollow one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Alas, many people aren't as principled as you.

As for the market, there's a slow erosion and the changes are harder to see because there are still a few blockbusters being made, the ones targeting teenaged males who want to get out of the house on Friday. The adult blockbusters with big stars are rarer and rarer.

We've seen the complete collapse of the Independent intelligent movie. The hot films at Sundance were always picked up for fat contracts until recently.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Well? Any time I finish a comment here, I re-read it, and if its missing some bits, like your "The only blockbusters left are", I take care to finish it.
So, feel like saying what these blockbusters are?

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

I'm going on the record: this guy is kidding, and doing an amazing job. "I don't want file sharing to cut even a small part of their budget because I want the studios to have plenty of money . . . to . . . " BWAAHAAHAAAAHAAAA!!! I can't even finish. Seriously, Bob--this was an excellent spoof, and I applaud you. You might want to reel it in just a touch for realism's sake, but you know what--don't. This was such a howler that I wouldn't want you to change a thing.

Re: Re: Wow!

"besides, it's not the rest of the world's job to babysit and give royalty-welfare checks to artists simply for making art, they can take care of themselves, i wish some of them would start doing so instead of whining about filesharing there's plenty of info on how they can do that, all they have to do is GOOGLE IT"

Yes, paying a legitimate price for a piece of art is "babysitting" the artist.

No one said to start giving ROYALTY CHECKS to artists. I love the careful way people word things - whether intentional or not. An album is $8-9. A song is $.99-1.99. Heck with Spotify you can get unlimited music on your iPhone for $10 a month.

And yeah there are so many other ways for artists to make money then selling music. I'm one of them and I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT IT. What should I Google exactly? "How can my band make some money without selling merchandise?"?

Re: Re: Wow!

Common Joe? Have you met any of the Google billionaires? Or any of the Google multi-millionaires? They've got more sports cars and jets than all of the guys from the record companies. The only thing that the ANR guys from the record companies have more of is gold chains. Heck, even the peons at Google feast on more squab and pate than you'll ever see.

Get a clue. Big Search is a big business and they hate sharing anything with the copyright holders. You're just being bamboozled by the astroturfers to think that this has anything to do with the Common Joe. It doesn't. The Common Joe gets nothing, nada, zilch and Big Search gets more jets and fancy cars. Sheesh.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Great artists will be great artists despite infringement. George Lucas isn't hurting and unable to create anymore because his movies have been pirated millions of times. I am willing to bet that those people who get pirated the most are also some of the most successfully compensated artists alive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Actually, it's not so simple. George Lucas hasn't made a good movie since piracy went digital. He's not a good example in any case.

The real example are the artists who don't get contracts because the publishing houses and the movie studios and the recording houses have less money. Big Content may waste money on booze and bling, but it does reinvest some of its cash. If they make less money, they sign fewer new artists.

That's who gets hurt and I'll bet that many of these unsigned artists are capable of making something better than the last Star Wars movie.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Artists that are unsigned are not being hurt by piracy since their films aren't being pirated much at all in comparison. Big companies are not passing on making a movie by any artist because they feel it will be pirated too much and not make any money. They pass on films because their research groups say not enough people want to see it, not the other way around.

Just because you don't care for all of Lucasfilm movies doesn't mean they aren't good. The new Red Tails movie coming out soon looks awesome. :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

The size of the budget and the chance of return decides how many books/movies/CD/etc are signed. Then they just use the market research and stuff to decide which ones are more likely to find an audience. If the industry could double their income, they would double their production to fight over that new income. Happens every time.

What???

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

The hits keep coming!!!

"Great hits" = "Great artists" now!

Bob, bob, bob...you're making me proud. Come on now, who are you really? Or do you have partners helping with this stuff? It's truly brilliant--an amazing mix of troll, shill and tin-foil-hat wearer ("Big Search! Big Hardware!) that I haven't yet seen around here. Whoever you are: keep it up. YOU are the real artist of the day.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

You know, you actually make my brain hurt.

Your argument is that because they're rich, they're evil? But, you're also arguing for people to continuously pay for movies! Wouldn't that make the top people in film production rich? Top name actors and actresses, directors and producers have mansions, cars, jewelry, you name it. Are they now evil?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

No. I'm not arguing that in the least. I've just grown tired of the idea that the file sharing people are just some grassroots organization that wants to stick it to the man. Big Content is bad but the file sharing guys are little guys. Some bozo up above said it was the "Common Joe" who was sticking it to the artists.

That's just not true. Big Hardware, Big Search and Big Piracy are making big bucks and sharing little with the artists by claiming, "Oh it's the Internet. There's nothing we can do." But that's wrong. There's plenty they can do but they don't want to because they love the status quo where they get the lion's share of the money.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Seriously. You're the ONLY person who's ever called them Big Hardware and Big Search. They don't want to pay artists because THEY SHOULDN'T. Big Hardware (I assume you mean computer manufacturers) know that people use their computers for many activities. Just because some people infringe using computers, does that mean HP et al should give millions to artists?
Big Search, again, let's assume Google. They charge for a scarce good: the spot at the top of the search results. If a particular search term isn't being charged for, then its an algorithm that detects what so many millions of people have clicked on after searching XYZ. Again, they don't owe ANYTHING to artists.
I'm actually concerned for your mental health.
"No. I'm not arguing that in the least." Yes you did.
To quote
"Or any of the Google multi-millionaires? They've got more sports cars and jets than all of the guys from the record companies. The only thing that the ANR guys from the record companies have more of is gold chains. Heck, even the peons at Google feast on more squab and pate than you'll ever see.

Get a clue. Big Search is a big business and they hate sharing anything with the copyright holders. "

That statement can be boiled down to "They have lots of money. They must be evil".

Yes, you did argue it. Top names in the movie business are also rich, yet you're not calling them evil.
As for not sharing anything with copyright holders? This site has done an excellent job over the years showing how your messiahs (seriously, the way you go on about them, they must surely be divine) the record labels and movie studios hate paying copyright holders. We have Hollywood accounting, labels not paying artists and as I said in a different comment, the RIAA v Limewire lawsuit that had a $105 million victory for the RIAA, with NONE of that going to the artists.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

"Have you met any of the Google billionaires? Or any of the Google multi-millionaires? They've got more sports cars and jets than all of the guys from the record companies."

I guess Google did a much better job of providing their customers with what they wanted.

The Common Joe gets nothing, nada, zilch and Big Search gets more jets and fancy cars.

The Common Joe does not get nothing. I really like the services Google provides me for free and I'm happy that they make money from it. Conversely the record company's collective actions over decades have made me not want to give them a penny.

Re: Wow!

...but I'm sure glad to hear that someone has gotten the message that infringement is not protected by the First Amendment.

Bob, I have seen no one, anywhere, claim that infringement is protected by the First Amendment. That does not mean you can take out protected speech in the process of stopping infringement though. Pretty simple concept, really.

Now I've seen plenty of user generated content shared easily by YouTube. It's a great tool that's certainly helped a few folks.

Yes, it was user generated content that made YouTube's growth happen.

But let's not blind ourselves to what's going on. Take any big song from the last 40 years. Type the name into YouTube. There's close to a 100% chance that you'll be listening to that song within 10 seconds.

While that may be true, there is also a 100% chance that you don't know if that content was put there legitimately or not. The copyright owners themselves don't even know most of the time. (see Viacom v. Google)

I can't really make heads or tails out of the rest of your comment - so I won't comment on any of that.

Re: Re: Wow!

Re: Re: Wow!

Bob, I have seen no one, anywhere, claim that infringement is protected by the First Amendment.

That's the common implication here all of the time. There are dozens of posts here where we're told that we can't have ProtectIP because that would mean "censorship". Do the posts always use the word "protected by the First Amendment"? No. But the implication is always the same. All of the people who care about free expression must mount their horses and run to the defense of these poor, helpless pirate sites because these poor, helpless pirate sites are about to be censored.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

But the implication is always the same. All of the people who care about free expression must mount their horses and run to the defense of these poor, helpless pirate sites because these poor, helpless pirate sites are about to be censored.

As it should be. I don't care if you are trying to stop copyright infringement, child porn or jaywalking - you cannot stomp on the First Amendment to do it. Period.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Ya know, you're the most vocal troll on this site I've ever read. To prove you're a troll, you're equating pointing to where copyright infringement is being held (linking on a website) to aiding and abetting murder by saying where the victim is (which by itself isn't a crime).

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

There are dozens of posts here where we're told that we can't have ProtectIP because that would mean "censorship".

Exactly!

But the censorship that we're all talking about is not "censoring" the ability to engage in copyright infringement. It's that these efforts to stop copyright infringement take out legitimate free speech as collateral damage.

I don't give two hoots about anything produced by corporate media nowadays (meaning anything connected to RIAA, MPAA, etc.) I don't buy the stuff, listen to it, watch it, and I certainly don't pirate it.

However I care greatly that these entities are destroying my and my neighbors fundamental rights in the process of trying to prop up their obsolete business models. If they could draft legislation that would curtail copyright infringement without destroying legitimate rights, I would have exactly no problems with it.

This isn't about getting anything for free. This is about defending our freedom. Yours and mine.

Also, you talk a lot about Big Search, but you pose it as Big Search vs artists. This is incorrect. It's Big Search vs Big Media. Big Media cares even less for the artists than Big Search does. If Big Media were to die tomorrow, art and artists would be far better off for it. As would the rest of society.

Re: Re: Wow!

While that may be true, there is also a 100% chance that you don't know if that content was put there legitimately or not. The copyright owners themselves don't even know most of the time. (see Viacom v. Google)

Yup, and when some guy offers you something that's fallen off the truck, you're not 100% sure about it's origins. Or when your kid comes back the day after the London riots with ten new iPhones, you can't punish the kid or turn him in because you can't be 100% sure that he didn't earn the money and buy the iPhones himself.

Let's not be naive. There are many ways that YouTube could make it easier to police the site. Scribd used to let you flag copyrighted content with a single click. Now you've got to file some DMCA form in triplicate.

YouTube could require people to fill out a form certifying that they're the legitimate copyright holders. They could enforce their real name policy from Google+ and force the posters to publicly stand behind what they've posted. It wouldn't be hard.

But they don't do any of this.

All of the burden is placed on the copyright holder and it could be made so much more friendly to the creators.

So No. You can't just toss up your hands and insist that all of the free music on YouTube must be allowed to stay until we're 100% certain that it's illegitimate.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Ooooh. Google spends some of its own money. How nice. Given how well they spend their own money complying with drug laws, I'm sure it's really cut back their profits.

The burdens need to be shared by all parts of the system. Gun companies add serial numbers and track purchases to help regulators. We don't insist that the poor grieving widows band together and set up booths to engrave serial numbers themselves.

The car companies build in speedometers so people can comply with the speed limits. They don't insist that those hurt by speeders must pay for radar guns and other tools.

It's very common for burdens to be placed on the non-guilty and this is usually when this is the most efficient way for the burden to be shared by everyone in the system.

For instance, food and drug companies use tamperproof packaging to protect against accidental and deliberate contamination. Are you suggesting that only the guy who poisoned that bottle of Tylenol should pay for all of the shrink-wrapping?

If GooTube wanted to be a good citizen, it could easily add a number of very minor checkboxes and registration rules that would drastically cut back infringement. But then they wouldn't sell many ads, would they?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

No. Dismissing someone with the label of "troll" won't make the arguments go away. And it won't change the fact that it's hard work to make art. Asking all of the users to pay their fair share for a copy is a nice business model that has many advantages. It's not the only one, but I would hate to see it disappear from the world.

Shutting yourself in your own echo chamber and listening to only one side of the issues is not a smart way to go through life.

As Danny DeVito said in "War of the Roses": “When a guy who makes $400 an hour wants to tell you something, you should listen."

Heck, why don't you pay for a legit copy of that movie some time. I think you'll like it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

"And it won't change the fact that it's hard work to make art" I and the rest of the market DON'T CARE how much work went into your art. You can spend a million years carefully writing and recording the Greatest Song EVAR, but if no-one actually likes the music, it won't sell.
"Asking all of the users to pay their fair share for a copy is a nice business model that has many advantages."
So you freely admit its a business model discussion going on here. Not one based around theft. Let's rebuttal: your holy business model is being destroyed in today's world.
Twenty, thirty years ago, you sold plastic discs, a scarce good because other than the radio and MTV, there was no way to get at the music. Nowadays, people have more control over how to play music they want, they have access to the internet. They don't NEED the shiny plastic discs to be paid for over and over anymore.
The market has changed. People like myself don't want to pay for individual tracks of music. Rather, I pay for a cyberlocker account, so I have access to a download archive of a huge size. The cyberlocker gets my money because they're providing a service that I value at an affordable price. I don't care if the music is there without permission. Perhaps if the artists can work out a deal with the cyberlockers, that would help.
I don't want to pay for label music because the cost is too high: both in terms of the dollar amount at the till, and in the cost of my civil liberties.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Now you've got to file some DMCA form in triplicate.
----------------
Don't bitch now, this is exactly what the entertainment industries wanted, the DMCA. Now that they have it, they want more, as always. Suddenly, DMCA isn't enough, it's too burdensome, it's too much bother, it's a problem. That wasn't the sales pitch to make it law I promise you.
----------------
All of the burden is placed on the copyright holder
----------------
Since the copyright holders have not been forthcoming with exactly what they own, who the heck knows what is or is not copyrighted? Even http://www.riaaradar.com/ has troubles identifying what is and is not covered. They do this all the time. What makes you think that all of a sudden, when the entertainment industries mix in their own offerings among the rest, you can automatically tell what is and is not covered? This is nothing but a smoke screen.

Even the entertainment industry has problems with identifying what they have authorized to be distributed on Youtube while the lawyers and others are trying to get it off through DMCA.

If it were truely a matter of making it easy, the owners would have some sort of list posted as to what they own. Don't see that anywhere. In fact it is in very limited supply.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

No. The entertainment industry didn't write the DMCA. The DMCA was a compromise between Big Hardware and Big Content. It wasn't an effective one. The lobbyists from Silicon Valley had just as big a hand, if not a bigger one, crafting the law.

No law is carved in stone. They're renegotiated all of the time. So don't act like somehow this was Big Content's fault for wanting the wrong thing.

Actually there is such a list. The copyright office has a nice registry. It's not perfect, but it will do. And AMazon is more than happy to share it's API filled with legit products that are all copyrighted. So the lists exist. Don't close your eyes and claim that you can't see them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Seems to me there are plenty of laws that are 'carved in stone.' Take a minute to think about that. I'm sure you can come up with some.

HOWEVER.

MOST copyright infringement falls short of criminal infringement. It's a civil matter. Making ME pay to protect YOUR crappy 'art' most certainly is not fair. Take your fallacious 'i need to be paid' arguments and kindly refile them between the cheeks where they belong.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

For the record, when you say 'Big Search', you're talking about Google, right? And 'Big Hardware' is who? Apple? You know neither of those companies were worth a damn when the DMCA was signed right? The only 2 relevant companies that even had a penny to their names when the DMCA was penned were Microsoft and Intel. MS backed it to the nuts, and Intel as far as I remember didnt really care, because their an innovator; once they create something its on to the next thing, not worry about getting paid for the first a billion times. So no, the DMCA was not a compromise with any hardware companies, it was a ludicrous destruction of American rights, and when it came to be I was glad I'm Canadian. But seriously, get your facts straight before you try and argue here, because a lot of the regulars here actually remember what's happened over the last 10 years

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Scribd used to let you flag copyrighted content with a single click.

This wouldn't work. First, because it would be abused (much as the DMCA is now) to suppress legitimate free speech that someone else doesn't like. Second, because even the copyright holders themselves have difficulty telling if a given youtube video is infringing or not, and have taken down many videos that were not.

YouTube could require people to fill out a form certifying that they're the legitimate copyright holders. They could enforce their real name policy from Google+ and force the posters to publicly stand behind what they've posted. It wouldn't be hard.

All of which would accomplish nothing. Google+ has no way of knowing if a name is real or not (they only look for names that _sound_ fake). And even if they did know, people who want to engage in copyright violations would still simply "certify" that they are the copyright holders even when they weren't. Why do you think they'd be honest?

Re: Wow!

Talk about missing the point. If you use PROTECTIP to label and thus ban YouTube, you care silencing a lot of legitimate speech. The YouTubes of the world aren't the most sympathetic corporations (lol on "Big Search"). Why do you ignore this? You seem to latch onto this idea that that the only legitimate speech anyone is claiming is the infringing content. Plus, you don't tackle how to distinguish the use of content that is fair use. Big Content (I can do that too) doesn't like fair use and you gladly label sites that have a lot of fair use as rogue sites. However, fair use is free speech.

Re: Re: Wow!

Plus, you don't tackle how to distinguish the use of content that is fair use

I'm glad to. There are a few simple things that Big Search and Big Hardware could do:

1) Take that real names policy from Google+ and force all of the YouTube uploaders to attach their real names to their creations. We keep hearing that people just want to be recognized for their contribution. Attribution is all it takes for a fertile creative ecosystem.

Okay, let's give credit where it's due. Let's force all of the bootleggers and "sharers" posting things on YouTube to stand behind their creations during job interviews and social functions.

2) Have people agree to a fine of $100 for uploading infringing content. Uploading is still free but if the rightholder complains, Google shuts down your mail and your Picasa and whatnot until you cough up the $100 fine. Then Google could keep half and share half with the rightsholders.

These are two simple techniques that would cost next to nothing to implement. Google is already enforcing real names at Google+. They've got the technology.

These would also have little effect on people who are truly using the material fairly. And it would do nothing to hurt the legit filmmakers.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

"2) Have people agree to a fine of $100 for uploading infringing content. Uploading is still free but if the rightholder complains, Google shuts down your mail and your Picasa and whatnot until you cough up the $100 fine. Then Google could keep half and share half with the rightsholders."

Good grief, you can't seriously mean that? A complaint and you're slapped with a fine? What happened to being proven guilty in a court of law? You actually support guilty upon accusation?
Besides, PRIVATE ENTITIES cannot issue fines. It's against the law.
As for...god...the idea of Google shutting off your gmail if you infringe on Youtube...Again, a form of blocking speech. Copyright holder doesn't like my speech, so he makes accusations against me and my speech is blocked? Oh wait, that's already happened. Thank you DMCA.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Private companies can and do write fines into contracts. For instance, the sports leagues all fine their players for infractions. This is a contractual matter not one from the government.

And give me a break about the whining about the speech. People can get another email provider. Google routinely shuts off services to companies or people that they don't like. If people violate the terms of service, Google shuts them off. It's just they haven't done this for the serial infringers on YouTube because that would deprive them of their revenue.

Get a clue. Google isn't not the government. Shutting you off doesn't stop your free speech.

The irony is that piracy hurts artists and their speech much more than losing a GMail account.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Seriously, what is your comprehension of reality.
"You can always go and get a different email provider"

Except, the situation today is that the biggest ISPs have said that if you're accused six times, then one likely result will be a termination of your account. What happens then when, due to ACCUSATIONS, you have no access to internet (other than the free wifi at Starbucks). That's a MASSIVE curtailing of speech. If I constantly issue death threats over the phone, I'm jailed, but I don't lose access to telephones (well, other than being in jail).

That's the problem people like me have with people like you. You're advocating a punishment based on no sound legal theory, that is way out of line with the "crime", one that bypasses the courts. That thought terrifies me.

Lastly, as for the sports companies, their sports stars have these terms written into contracts. Google won't do the same. They won't have a "Sign your name here to this contract before you search" because that would be idiotic. They don't need to. They're already covered by Section 230 safe harbours.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Ever hear of Minecraft? Little indie game, hugely popular, made by one guy. He ENCOURAGES piracy and has still made a few million. He's an artist and yet he's worked piracy into helping his business model. But you want those who pirate his work to be punished. Sounds like to me the artists aren't calling for punishments, its the middle-men and fools like you.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Have people agree to a fine of $100 for uploading infringing content. Uploading is still free but if the rightholder complains, Google shuts down your mail and your Picasa and whatnot until you cough up the $100 fine.

Riight. And nobody will just go and open a new Google account when that one was shut down...

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

NONE of this helps determine what is Fair Use and what is not. It's a great idea if you're the middleman holding the copyrights (note that this doesn't help the creators at all), and you don't like our the 'innocent until proven guilty' part of our legal system.

For all your shield banging, I'm going to have to take a guess that you really are a shill pretending to be something else.

Re: Wow!

But let's not blind ourselves to what's going on. Take any big song from the last 40 years. Type the name into internet radio. There's close to a 100% chance that you'll be listening to that song within 10 seconds.

I really don't get this position, everybody can find any song to hear it for free how is that different from the 80's when people bought double-decks just to record all that crap?

If listening to songs for free is so bad why radio endured all this years and the cries of the record industry where just largely ignored. Why if piracy is such a hindrance we only see declines in a few mature markets and not in the ever expanding developing world that have no way to enforce IP laws but still grow at tremendous rate.

Nigeria, India, Brazil, China, South Africa come to mind.
Even in developed countries like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong music is booming and piracy is rampant, now why it is affecting only a few countries and not others?

I don't know what I am certain of is that piracy is a unicorn, a myth created apparently to make up for all those years that people didn't notice and industry that is world famous for their scandalous spending on drugs and prostitutes(including kids), not to mention the very real criminals that maimed and killed people and are musicians supported by record labels that used PR agents to spind doctor their images so they could make a buck out of someone and somehow they want to tell us all that normal people doing what they always did (i.e. listen to music for free) is somehow different and it is a crime?

The only crime I see is people trying to murder reality.
Unfortunately for them, they don't have the "JRDF - Job's Reality Distortion Field" powerful enough to fool people into thinking they are doing something wrong.

Those people are used to bully other companies, but people are not other companies they never ever had to deal with such nonsense in their daily lifes and now crazy people are trying to put this in front center. People don't like those laws it takes things from them, it takes freedoms that they believe strongly in and at some point they will come together and push back hard and so the industry should not get surprised when people take away copyright or redefine it so differently that it will look nothing what we have today.

Re: Wow!

Response to Paragraph 1: Not once have I ever heard one of us "couch potatoes" saying we're just like Martin Luther King. Besides, King wasn't a free speech activist, he was a civil rights activist for people of coloured skin. Again besides, Big Search and Big Hardware (I presume you're referring to Google et al) do have a right to say they're pro-free speech. Look at what's happened in the Arabian Spring. Tools like Facebook and Youtube had an incontrovertible effect in toppling dictatorial regimes.

"Now I've seen plenty of user generated content shared easily by YouTube. It's a great tool that's certainly helped a few folks." Well, I'd say more than a few folks, but yes I and others here will agree with you on this.

"But let's not blind ourselves to what's going on. Take any big song from the last 40 years. Type the name into YouTube. There's close to a 100% chance that you'll be listening to that song within 10 seconds." And you say that like its a bad thing? There's a very high percentile chance that the song you search for is covered in some sort of licensing deal. I can upload a video and have an Evanescence song be the soundtrack for example, all legally. So what, searching for a song is wrong, but having to turn on the radio and hope it comes on is right?

"Now you can blather on about innovation this and innovation that, but as far as I can tell, the real innovation is that YouTube cut out the check out line. BFD. It's always easier to leave a store without paying. But that's not innovation." Again, you confuse shoplifting with copyright infringement. They're not the same. Youtube "cut out the check line". How about changed distribution models entirely? The new legal method of getting a movie no longer means having to drive down to Blockbuster and hoping there's a copy on the shelf. Now you can rent the movie from Youtube or Netflix (who by the way, are being forced to pay exorbitantly high licensing fees by the movie studios for daring to innovate).

"If Google and YouTube were a bunch of cheap hippies that were just giving this to the world, it might be possible to feel like maybe there's some truth to the myth that all of the sharing is building a better world. But no. They didn't open source the code for YouTube." Sharing is building a better world. That's what culture is. We share ideas, news, information...oh wait, people like you want to charge for every single transaction. Besides, if you want to make the argument sharing isn't good, have something to back it up with. I did, when I mentioned the Arabian Spring.

"Big Search is owned by BILLIONAIRES people. All of this FUD about ProtectIP is just astroturfing to protect BILLIONAIRES and the AD REVENUE they get putting ads next to music they didn't write, didn't record or really do much of anything to support." As opposed to Protect IP being meant to protect BILLIONAIRES and the REPEAT CHARGES for every song they can get their hands on.

"So go ahead. Dream about how this is some digital utopia. It's just a more efficient way to screw the artists by giving them absolutely nothing and pretending that it's "cool"." What about the RIAA v Limewire lawsuit? After the RIAA (an organization supposedly suing to protect artists) won $105 million in court, they declared that not one penny was going to the artists. It was going to more anti-piracy campaigns.

Re: Re: Wow!

"The First Amendment played a crucial role in the epic struggles of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and countless others engaged in sit-ins, protests, marches and other demonstrations to force social change."

A bunch of robots helping cheap people cheat artists are not in the same league.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

What I meant was that Dr. King wasn't an activist for free speech alone. He campaigned mainly for the civil rights of black people, things like having equal access to housing, jobs, healthcare and things like that. He campaigned for Rosa Parks to be able to sit on any seat on the bus, which doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
He used his free speech rights, yes, but didn't campaign for them.

Re: Wow!

Re: Wow!

OMG. I'm not sure what happened, but I'm sure glad to hear that someone has gotten the message that infringement is not protected by the First Amendment.

No one has ever argued that. Other than folks like Henley setting up a strawman. The concern of most of us is the massive collateral damage done by the industry and the gov't in trying to stop infringement. The effort fails at stopping infringement, but does block legitimate, protected speech.

But let's not blind ourselves to what's going on. Take any big song from the last 40 years. Type the name into YouTube. There's close to a 100% chance that you'll be listening to that song within 10 seconds

You do know that YouTube has deals with publishers and the collections societies, and its content ID system means that the rightsholders get paid for all that, don't you?

Re: Re: Wow!

Yes, I know all about the YouTube deals and I'm sure they're helping a few, but that still doesn't excuse the years of infringement or the ongoing infringement to which they plead that it's all too hard for them to figure out. Their AI geniuses can solve other problems but not this one.

And yes you and your astroturfing friends have argued that infringers should be protected by the First Amendment:

I could go on, but you clearly believe that some robot telling people how to get stuff for free is protected speech. It may not reach the Feist definition of creativity but some how those infringement indexes are just like Martin Luther King deserving of protection. Give me a break.

Re: Re: Re: Wow!

a) do the copyright laws violate the first amendment?
b) is downloading copyright material without a license legal?
c) is helping people to break the law an offence?

Three questions, I hope you can manage three straight answers without berating me or talking down. It's time to your cards on the table and choose a side.

Is Lessig wrong to be looking at the first amendment issues surrounding copyright? Are legal actions claiming some sort of 1st amendment right out of line?

What's it going to be, yes or no? No more shading, no more blurry stuff, let's have your true outright personal opinion. None of this "I didn't write it, I just wrote about it" stuff. Let's have your personal opinions. Where do you really stand Mike?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

a) do the copyright laws violate the first amendment?
b) is downloading copyright material without a license legal?
c) is helping people to break the law an offence?

A) Possibly, they are unquestionably in conflict with the first amendment, especially considering the ridiculousness of 70+ years. Dial the length back reasonable level (i.e 15-20 years MAX) and with protected fair use exceptions, the conflict can be minimized.

B)NO it is not (currently) legal. (And for the record I have never seen any article on this site or regular commentator on this site say that it is.) HOWEVER it is not necessarily immoral, and most importantly it is a CIVIL matter, downloading copyright(ed) material without a license in and of itself should not EVER be considered a criminal matter.

C) More information required. That question is meaningless without context.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

"I may not be Mike but I will gladly answer this on my own behalf.
a) do the copyright laws violate the first amendment?
b) is downloading copyright material without a license legal?
c) is helping people to break the law an offence?"

A) Possibly, they are unquestionably in conflict with the first amendment, especially considering the ridiculousness of 70+ years. Dial the length back reasonable level (i.e 15-20 years MAX) and with protected fair use exceptions, the conflict can be minimized.

So you think that limiting copyright to 15-20 years will help? And protecting fair use? Didn't you see the article on the spike of infringement of Fox shows due to delaying access an additional week?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Didn't you see the article on the spike of infringement of Fox shows due to delaying access an additional week?

So, AC, official statement time: In your opionion,

a) Are companies like FOX justified or not in delaying online programming?
b) Will it not necessarily lead to an increase in piracy, because not everyone is a freeloading freetard?
c) Does it create piracy spikes?

Three questions, I hope you can manage three straight answers without berating me or talking down. It's time to your cards on the table and choose a side.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

DVD: It's a license, nothing more.

IP: never exactly like DNA or fingerprints, it points to an end device on a network, with a limited number of potential users at the end. Like a phone number, it points to a responsible party, the person who took the service.

Downloading: almost without exception, yes. Certainly someone can spike a file with something else, but generally if you are looking for "Angelina Jolie Sex Tape_rip", your intent is clear. It is no different from buying a sealed box at a store. Your intent is to buy a baby stroller. If you get home and there something else inside, it doesn't change your intent.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

What if I go to the cottage and forget my license? Can I download if I have a license?
How much does a license renewal cost(if mine is lost damaged or stolen)?

Will I lose my phone if someone uses it to utter death threats without my knowledge?
Before answering that it is a vital service that can't be completely cut off(911), consider this:
I know a woman who was forcibly confined(beaten, dragged around by hair, and tied to a chair) earlier this year, before being able to send e-mails requesting help. The "accused" had smashed all phones. Being able to send those e-mails may very well have saved her life.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!

Ambiguous question. Which copyright laws? Any? All? Are you asking for a legal opinion as determined by the courts or a moral opinion backed up by a personal philosophy?

b) is downloading copyright material without a license legal?

Nope.

c) is helping people to break the law an offence?

Another ambiguous question. How is this alleged offender "helping"? Does the telephone company criminally "help" drug dealers by offering them the communication service they need to connect with their customers? If I link to ThePirateBay in my post, am I criminally "helping" infringers? What if I only link to YouTube instead?

You Tube

"But let's not blind ourselves to what's going on. Take any big song from the last 40 years. Type the name into YouTube. There's close to a 100% chance that you'll be listening to that song within 10 seconds.

Now you can blather on about innovation this and innovation that, but as far as I can tell, the real innovation is that YouTube cut out the check out line. BFD. It's always easier to leave a store without paying. But that's not innovation. "

Let's not blind ourselves to what's really going on. The major labels cut their own throats by destroying real radio, turning it into a pap distribution system, making most old catalog except for maybe 5 songs by each artist unavailable, dictating playlists and generally turning it into anal aural wallpaper and Clone Rocker of the Week.

Now, you can blather on about piracy this and downloading that, but as far as I can tell, the real innovation is the public clearly responding to a radio-like channel and telling the labels what it would buy if it was made available at a sane price like $1 a song [which is another place the labels cut their own throat by destroying the 45/single song sales leader in order to push releases padded with filler tracks].

Most tracking studies have shown that it's easier and acceptable to most people to actually pay reasonable prices for single songs if they were available [back catalog], but that's not the kind of thinking the labels like.

Re: You Tube

Uh, is YouTube charging $1 for a song? Nope. This has nothing to do with pricing models. We're just arguing about whether someone should pay anything. I have no idea what the right price should be, but I think the artist should be part of the conversation about what that price is. It shouldn't be someone taking it without asking.

Re: Re: You Tube

Asking price and selling price are two different things.
Just ask a real estate agent.

They price at what the market will bear. Oh, and guess what? The more there are available, the cheaper it is.

They also ask the buyer to make an offer.

I'll give you a penny/song. Take it or leave it.
Perform live and I, with many other people, will give you ten dollars. Or, you can sit at home, make nothing, and cry that you aren't making enough money.

P.S. When a homeowner is hurting for cash and wishes to make a sale, they lower the price. As many times as necessary until they find the point that someone is willing to pay.

KEEP opposition to "PROTECT IP", and KEEP ad hom at millionaires,

but DROP your support for Youtube; it doesn't produce anything of its own, just sells eyeballs for ads drawn by content that others made. -- That it's entertaining is irrelevant; it's the SOURCE of its draw that's important.

Re: KEEP opposition to "PROTECT IP", and KEEP ad hom at millionaires,

Re: KEEP opposition to "PROTECT IP", and KEEP ad hom at millionaires,

I would dare say a majority of the content is uploaded by users as their legitimate content. Whether YouTube itself produces anything is irrelevant. If you don't like how it is set up, then you don't have to upload any of your content to YouTube.

And to preempt your illicit content argument, YouTube bends over backwards, within the realm of technical feasibility, to help content owners police their content.

It doesn't matter whether it's the majority or the minority. There's a huge amount of illegitimate content. I can be listening to practically any major song I want in a few seconds and I'm willing to bet a paycheck or two that well over 80% of the major music videos are not legit.

You can't have it both ways, the law is the law. And the law says you have to enforce your own copyright.

Copyright was set up as a tradeoff. The public grants to you a temporary limited right to control the copying and distributing of your creative works in exchange for you actually publishing your creative works. However, the public keeps getting screwed because the government keeps retroactively changing that deal making it less and less temporary, less and less limited, and doesn't enforce the whole publishing bit either.

When you signed up for copyright, the law was (and still is) that you have to enforce your copyright, no one was going to do it for you. If you have a problem with that, you shouldn't have made the agreement, and you could have just kept all your creative works to yourself. Stop trying to alter the deal. Live with the choice you made and enforce your own copyright at your own expense. That's the deal you signed up for. Now live with it.

Far too long the public has given in to copyright holders whines and complaints. Copyright holders are spoiled brats and continuously ask for us to change the already agreed upon deal. It's time it stopped. Books, music, poetry, and art were all being created long before copyright ever came about. And they along with music recordings, movies and software will continue to be made long after copyright is gone. It needs to be abolished now.

Nope. Criminal copyright is on the books and the cops enforce criminal matters. If I can call the cops when someone breaks into my house, I should be able to call the cops when I see something on YouTube. They should be able to show up with warrants and figure out who's responsible.

Do they do it? Very rarely. So while I do have the civil courts available to me, the laws are on the books to allow the cops to take care of it.

Criminal copyright law is about commercial purposes you are not the one that will enforce that it is the state is not Youtube who has to do anything about it and if the government it is not doing so is probably because it says you must prove intent to not only infringe but to have made money out of it.

Can you prove people uploading music for free to others are getting paid to do so?

Commercial advantage or private financial gain is still very much a part of the law. But no matter how much youtube/grooveshark/vimeo/scribd/etc. might profit from infringement, they aren't liable for what is uploaded by their users. They comply with the DMCA. Again, the law is the law. You can't have the law state that service providers aren't liable for the actions of its users, and yet charge them with criminal copyright infringement because the users commit civil copyright infringement. And the same is true of "Big Search".

"Yeah, I searched for a song on Google, saw there was a link to it on Youtube and I'm not sure if its there with the legal authorization of its copyright holder. Can you send the cops over?"

"Umm...that would be a matter between the copyright holder and Google/Youtube. Besides, this is for emergencies only. You can be arrested for abusing the 911 number. Anyway, if this does end up in criminal court, wouldn't you be liable for admitting to searching for the song and viewing it?"

Actually, Feist-dude, it DOES matter whether it's the majority or the minority. Check out the law on what hotels that sometimes have hookers rent rooms have to do, and you'll have an idea of what the law here is. Same with chemical-sales folks vis meth labs. You may or may not be following me, but try: if your thingy is used for illegitimate purposes sometimes but not a majority of the time, you're in a different position than if the opposite is true.

Neither Arthur Andersen (FTFY) nor Enron were challenged for providing services that were used in illegal ways. The COMPANIES THEMSELVES were engaged in malfeasance. You clearly don't know the law in this area (or any, based on your bungled use of Feist). Please stop trying to speak legalese--it's not becoming...especially if you're a real-life lawyer.

Please, PLEASE tell me you're not a lawyer.

Oh, and as for the Betamax case, are you saying that only 1% of purchasers watched movies legally on their Betamaxes? First of all, that's patently false. Secondly, look how the movie industry embraced VHS which--doh--is also a recordable medium. In fact, VHS--and now DVD--provides your beloved industry with a great deal of its income. Is that the 99% illegitimate you're talking about?

So what, most of the music put there is legitimate from the labels themselves, I dare you not find an original artists not in there.

Remember the last time Google blocked U.K. artists music in the site what happened?

Thousands of musicians cried foul as they were not able to upload anything and thus have no exposure.

Besides if listening for free was that bad why is radio still in place they obviously are bad for the labels right, I mean they give all that music for free where no one pays for it ever.

Have you gone to spotify? its free everybody is there.
Have you used pandora? its free and you can find anything there too.
Have you tunned to a radio station recently? its free and you will find anything you want too.

Uh dude, SPotify and Pandora pay the artists. They're not jerks. Heck, YouTube even does it from time to time.

I don't think we have any way of establishing whether most of the content is legit or illegitimate and the artists uploading their own stuff without telling their lawyers is certainly adding to the confusing.

AH, finally: the ever-faithful "I think we can be safe in knowing" argument. I remember that one well from . . . well, from any argument I've ever had where the person trotting that one out can't back up something with actual facts from actual sources.

You're right, it doesn't matter. As long as there is ANY non-infringing content shutting down the whole site could possibly be against the law.

I want you to do us all a favor: PROVE that YouTube can know, 100% of the time, what is and is not infringing and stop it before it is posted. Try not to fall back upon any debunked or clearly fantastic (as in 'fantasies') ideas.

Re: KEEP opposition to "PROTECT IP", and KEEP ad hom at millionaires,

Of course it produces, it gives people normal people a platform they can use, it also is making millionaires out of some people, the top earner there is making 300K a month or more.

Youtube and other video streaming websites provide the grounds where people could do other things and a few are starting to learn how to make money on that when that is the case, but most people just like to show their cats, or rant about something or give away information about how heart atttacks happen, medical videos showing every possible surgery possible which is great when you have medical emergencies and want to know what is going on, it is a place where others use it to teach things and spread knowledge.

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;(Commercial piracy is a crime, can you idiot prove piracy commerce on people uploading songs to Youtube or putting a song in a video showing their cats and babies dancing?)

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or(this was to address massive distribution of content for free, it was added later and really doesn't make that much sense but it is in the books, now can you prove that someone put anything there surpassing the market value of $1000? Here is the only case one could probably get Youtube users in real trouble and it is not that hard you just need to claim your music is value a $1000 dollars right why can't you?)

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.(this one was to address leaking of content, has anybody leaked new songs to Youtube lately? I don't think I ever saw Youtube being used to leak any music did anyone see Youtube being use for that?)

The intent on the criminal copyright laws are very clear to anyone that bother to read it you only can call the cops if you see someone making a buck out of it, or if you see one person distributing massive(and I use massive loosely here) quantities of content or if it is a leak of the work.

What is stopping you from calling the cops again?

Oh that is right your own stupidity, you are so fraking stupid that you can't even read the law that is why you don't know when you can and cannot call the cops to arrest someone, that is why when you do call them, the cops laugh, because your nonsense doesn't apply and wouldn't hold up in court because you want to stop others from ever using any instance of music, you probably hate fair use because it is the thing that stands in your may of claiming absolute control over something you shouldn't have any control of, because if you did you would have stopped all that piracy that happens in libraries, radios, internet radios, recording media and so forth but you can't can you?

They obviously and I mean obviously know that their products are not used to create new things they are mostly used to copy something that is copyrighted and worst they make money out of it don't they, they enable the pirates and they do profit from it and on the back of your PRECIOUS content LoL

Sue IBM that keep developing ever more efficient ways that people can pirate content, did you sue 3M?

Re:

Don is bitter because he and his music have become so unimportant. He's used to the sales numbers he got in the 70s and 80s and has no real clue as to how to get them back up where they were besides charging insane prices for concert tickets. I've been to an Eagles concert back when they said it was their [first] last tour. Good music but not worth the price, even then.

Re: Quoting Henley

Re: Re: Quoting Henley

You say so... I think so that Mr. Henley is one of
the best Musicians/Public Relations experts out there.
He wears two hats: Int'l Musician and Political Activist.
And he has over 35+ years experience to boot. I've learned
much about P.R. from his media victories. I view him as having a provable track record.

Re: Who???

And wealth limits, come to think of it.

Most Senators/Congressman are millionaires and their constituents are not. Nothing like money to make you forget all of the "little people/problems".

Maybe we should have some clause like "elected persons may not have a personal or familial wealth greater that 20% +- the median individual member of the populations wealth" or something to that effect...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who???

Lobo, I agree on some levels. We should limit Senators, no question. But some people are motivated by money (Leahy, Frank, Hatch, Kloubacher, etc...) and you need a lot of money to be a successful politician. The question is, how to change the system and stop allowing it to be overrun by a collusion of interests.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who???

I have to apologize, I had assumed you meant limiting wealth for everyone... Limiting it for Government officials (the amount they can take in while in office) is a great idea now that I am thinking about it properly. More important than limiting it though, would be FULL and COMPLETE disclosure of elected officials finances, to the point where they can't drop a quarter into a bums coffee cup without reporting it to the public.

To the other responders, I had said could, and never meant to imply that it always would.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who???

I just meant that I believe there are payments/exchanges of cash that aren't reported to those sites. I literally want to know if they dropped a quarter into a bum's cup on the sidewalk, or a dime into someone's guitar case. I want to know of every hundred dollar bill they got in a briefcase at the coffee shop, even the ones that go straight to their off shore bank accounts.

Re: Who???

Re: Who???

Age has nothing to do with this matter, or any matter.
It's one's knowledge, experience and firm belief in the cause, respect you hold from from orgs., that brig you the ultimate strength (value) to be a potential winner.Or, in this case,move from pening to actual legislation. Friends of all ages make you well-rounded.

Re: Re: Who???

I'd agree, except that you're kinda wrong.... Age has a lot to do with this matter. I really have no idea what Don Henley is up to these days, nor do I care even the slightest. But, given what I do know about him, he's probably not going to be writing/recording/performing many new hit singles these days, and as such, he's probably not going to make as much money in his later years as he may have earlier on. That being the case, he is likely to be looking at alternatives for supplementing that lost income, and one way is to "act" like so many celebrities do. Say what someone wants you to say, make it sound sincere, and get paid a ton based on how popular you may once have been. That's pretty common these days, and it's almost painfully obvious that many of the clowns who take that path don't know or care too much about what they're talking about.

Basically, what I meant was that if someone paid him enough, Don Henley would probably start trying to convince everyone that grass was red and the sky was yellow, because he likes money and wouldn't be affected one way or the other from the spreading of his misinformation.

Age BS...

Re: Age BS...

now, now. What kind of lady asks a question like that.

Now to answer your previous post, I don't give a shit who he formed a group to lobby (bribe) with. They would be just as irrelevant to the future as the Music RECORDING industry is. I reject your false assertion of the failing music industry, only the middlemen recoding 'industry'. But I know that you don't, just like your namesake Ms.Antoinette didn't care. And like her and the legacy regime that made her and you, the guillotine will have the last word.

Re: Age BS...

I'm around 30 years old, give or take a few. That doesn't have anything to do with this conversation though, except in the same context as Henley's age, which is to try and get a sense of motivation. Henley's motivation, I have no doubt, is purely financial. He's not making new music, it's unlikely that people are still buying his work all that much, and he needs to be able to pay for his mansion(s). He doesn't care one bit about the implications of this legislation, that is my point. I care, because it will impact me and my children. Henley is undoubtedly one of those rich arrogant assholes who thinks as long as he can spend enough money, he and his family can't get into trouble with the law... I don't know anything about him really, but the simple fact that he's clueless about the impacts of this legislation, and is willing to throw his name behind it for a paycheck, makes him a low-life in my book. Unless you can say something that adds value to this conversation, we're done here.

A loyal Eagles fan...

Generally, the entire bill approval process takes over
2 dozen steps, within three levels of U.S. government.
One step closer to becoming a bill, is better than six
step backwards, and not trying to achieve anything at all.

Don Henley P.R....

It's not like Don Henley is a rookie at music or politics. He's been fully involved in both entities numerous years. His arguments are rationaly-based on Constitutional Rights for the sake of both seasoned and new musicians.

A song Don Henley might want to listen to...

...is called "Get Over It". Great little tune...written by...ummm...Don Henley:

You said you haven't been the same
Since you had your little crash
But you might feel better
If they gave you some cash
The more I think about it
Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers
Kill 'em tonight!
Don't wanna work
You want to live like a king
But the big bad world
Doesn't owe you a thing
Get over it!

Take it Easy, Don. There’s a New Kid in Town, and it’s called the Internet. Get Over It. I Can’t Tell you Why, but in The Long Run, there isn’t going to be a Heartache Tonight. One of these Nights I hope you’ll you understand that for search engines to Take it To the Limit, they can’t be forced to police every search result.

Internet companies only grow when living Life in the Fast Lane, able to operate, innovate and design products without needing to check for permission from the music industry. If every time you wrote a song you had to worry about what every user who plays it and every store that sells it might do with it, you would lose your Peaceful, Easy Feeling quickly. Big companies might run filters, but if the small ones had needed to they would be Already Gone.

Re: Re: Re: Unofficial EFF response to Don Henley

It's not a double standard. You can do the same thing if you want to write a new script and hire new artists and new musicians. That's very different from just taking someone's complete work like the couchpotatoes do.

He's right that stopping infringement is not censorship, but the bill is extremely broad and goes way beyond stopping infringement. In a weak attempt to do so, it advocates outright censorship with no due process.

And again we come to Masnick's big lie(s). First that there is censorship. That is a lie. Under the terms proposed by the Protect IP Act, an infringing foreign will continue to operate uncensored and untouched by US jurisprudence. The only possible sanctions are that it could lose access to US-based credit card and ad networks, and may be delisted from US search engines. It's content is untouched and it is free to carry on it's criminal activity , albeit not enabled by US-based companies. The next big lie is that there is no due process. Again, the leading First Amendment Scholar in the nation, Floyd Abrams testified before the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee at length as to both the constitutionality of the bill and how it comports with the due process requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Re:

Re:

If that is a lie you are also calling the supremes(as in the Supreme Court of the United States) liers because was they who first mentioned that copyright abridges freedom of speech and it needs to be balanced against societies needs.

See Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 560. First, 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), which makes only expression, not ideas, eligible for copyright protection, strikes a definitional balance between the First Amendment and copyright law by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author’s expression. Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 556. Second, the “fair use” defense codified at §107 allows the public to use not only facts and ideas contained in a copyrighted work, but also expression itself for limited purposes. “Fair use” thereby affords considerable latitude for scholarship and comment, id., at 560, and even for parody, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569.

Re:

Um...due process is not contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It's in the Constitution, asshat. Your sentence is at the very least backwards, although I have a feeling you couldn't make sense of it then either.

Re: Re:

@dwg:

Nothing better than a rube with an internet law background spouting off on constitutional law.

Yes the constitution addresses due process, but due process and other rights are codified and expounded upon by case law and procedural rules. Where is due process defined in the constitution? Things like being read your Miranda right, discovery, etc all grew out of the due process provision of the constitution but are not part of the constitution per se. Even though you have an apparent IQ somewhere around room temperature, you should still be able to understand this.

Re: Re: Re:

Actually, mate, it's the Fifth Amendment.

"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

In this case, being a matter of Constitutional law, we're dealing with substantive law, not procedural law. So, even though the Federal Rules of Civil "Procedure" might sound to your tone-deaf ear like "process," it's not the Process at issue here. Here, "due process" means a whole lot more.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ahhhh...the crickets. Gotta be honest, AC--I was hoping for more outta you. I love when people make assumptions about my background and call me names. And then stick their dicks in the dirt, like you did.

Oh well. I can wait if you, you know, need to look something up or something. It'd be worth your while, before responding.

Mix Tapes....

I wonder what percentage of people that spout the pro-copyright "pay the artist" spiel ever made a mix tape?

Come to think of it, I actually wonder how many times I actually PAID for "Hotel California"... I know it was on at least 3 different albums I had, and a couple of versions on tape (and a couple of mix tapes I recorded off the air BEFORE I could afford to buy the albums). Hmmm...

Now the real question.... I wonder how much of the money I actually paid for those albums actually made it to the artist (both the song writer AND the singer) vs the production company....

I'm not saying that copying is RIGHT or should be legal, I'm just saying that people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

Gang, I hate to admit it, but when Don Henley is right, he is just plain right.

I can't deny a single claim he's made, and to be an honest man in this rumdum 'ol world, sometimes you have to face bitter bitter truth and walk directly into the fire.

Don is a victim of MASSIVE YouTube defrauding. I thought at first, what harm would it be, a few videos, a couple of links, nothing major. I was so wrong. Don's music is majorly being highjacked by a band of cutthroats that are brazenly taking his videos, like MTV used to play, and putting them where young kids and old folks can see them. They should be locked in a vault somewhere they can be monetized and the bits fade at random from 1's to 0's and vice versa but here they are where ANYONE can see them.

From what I can tell the main culprits are a family operation called Warner Brothers, followed close behind bye the VEVO gang with a couple of Molls acting as front faces.

Having seen a few seconds of each of these clips, I feel I owe 'The Don' as I like to call him, a little something so I am off to my second job so I can send him $87,540.26. I want to thank the MPAA for that handy calculator.

Critics of this pending legislation need to be honest about the company they keep and why they essentially aid and abet these criminal endeavors.

Several paragraphs earlier:

Criminal foreign websites trafficking in American arts and entertainment products cost the U.S. economy $58 billion annually, including more than 373,000 lost American jobs, $16 billion in lost earnings, plus $2.6 billion in lost federal, state and local government tax revenue, according to the Institute for Policy Innovation.

Of course, the libertarian Institute for Policy Innovation was scored 8 out of 8 on the conservatism scale, as put out by the (also conservative) Capital Research Center. In the nineties, they worked with the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to criticize the FDA's stance on second-hand tobacco smoke. And the report he's citing was actually debunked on TechDirt, back in 2007 (see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/210721.shtml ). Perhaps Don Henley should start being honest about the company he keeps.

Re:

I believe people should really look at the definition of what "work" means.

Because if it means anybody can seat on their asses for the rest of their lifes for work done in some point of their lifes that work should not be protected at all.

Copyright was created to incentivize people to go work harder not less.

And it is even more appalling that some people feel entitled to protection that clearly undermine freedoms of the rest of the entire society. Such laws are dangerous and can only result in violent backlash against its supporters at some point in time.

No government will be able to protect those people against the other millions that have their freedoms abridged.

some of the facts

Yo Mike:

Let's go with some facts about the Eagles.

The ticket prices you are quoting comes from a scalping site that includes the following disclaimer:
Notice: The Eagles Tour is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Eagles, any venue or box office. Any use of trademarked terms are for descriptive purposes only.

Had you bothered to try to play fair you would have seen that Eagles concert tickets are available on Ticketmaster for as low as $68.25

Re: some of the facts

Re: some of the facts

How dare you take Mikey to task for his distortions. Those are the only real tools he has in his fanatical quest to eradicate copyright and impose his own "ingenious" business model on the entertainment industry.

Re: Re: some of the facts

Why do the same shills pop up to say everyone wants free media, to eradicate copyright, and steal money from kids because of piracy?

Can we get a new song and dance for a while? Ya know, one where you all actually answer questions instead of moving the goalposts? Or how about just stop attacking the messengers and try to clarify why your message is all sorts of wrong?

Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

what kind of shill would they be to do that? Shills, by definition, are only there to spread their employers propaganda.

Unfortunately people aren't buying the Mafiaa's propaganda. For which they have nobody but themselves to blame. When you treat everyone from the people you supposedly represent, to the consumers that give you money like scum and criminals, then you shouldn't expect them to worship your might for so long. Even gaddafi found that out recently

Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Jay, at the end of the day, the debate with the Techdirtbags doesn't really matter. No one voting on these matters gives a shit what you think because Masnick and his hangers-on are all dismissed as ani-copyright jihadists. The Protect IP Act will become law this fall no matter how much you whine, snivel or fulminate. Same with Felony Streaming. Graduated response has already been adopted by the ISP's. The noose is tightening on the freeloaders. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Reasoned debate with Techdirtbags is impossible. The rabidly zealous, anti-copyright jihadists have no interest in reasoned debate. So instead of sitting at the table with the other stakeholders and being heard, your own behaviour has you now considered along with the crazies in the tinfoil hats. Absolutely no one engaged in the policy debate (whose opinion is being listened to ) says any of the nutty things that are the daily currency of this site. On this forum, extremism is the coin of the realm. What you dopes fail to understand is that the farther you drift into extremism, the more you weaken the ability of mainstream allies with credibility to do anything. Really, you guys are PK, CDT, EFF's Tea Baggers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

That's funny. Every time the copyright industry sits down at a table somewhere to discuss a new law (ACTA, COICA, PROTECT-IP), not once have they invited the most important stakeholder: the public at large.
"Absolutely no one engaged in the policy debate (whose opinion is being listened to ) says any of the nutty things that are the daily currency of this site." - Nutty things like calling your own artists website a rogue site, or those of Veoh, Youtube, and the Internet Archive?
"On this forum, extremism is the coin of the realm"
Extremism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extremism)
1. the condition or act of taking an extreme view.
2. the taking of extreme action.
The recording industry wants to and has sued people for millions of dollars for sharing songs online, and wants to take away their internet connections. I'd call that extremist.

"Really, you guys are PK, CDT, EFF's Tea Baggers". For someone like me living in a different country than the United States of America, care to explain to me what PK and CDT are? I already know what EFF is, thanks, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit activist group that promotes civil liberties in relation to technology.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

That's funny. Every time the copyright industry sits down at a table somewhere to discuss a new law (ACTA, COICA, PROTECT-IP), not once have they invited the most important stakeholder: the public at large.

The professional apologist groups like EFF, CDT and PK are at the table. In fact, CDT drafted the description of rogue site for Protect IP. Considerable difference in the definition between COICA and Protect IP.

"Absolutely no one engaged in the policy debate (whose opinion is being listened to ) says any of the nutty things that are the daily currency of this site." -

Nutty things like calling your own artists website a rogue site, or those of Veoh, Youtube, and the Internet Archive?

No nutty like denial of economic harm to rightsholders, accusations of bribery of federal officials and judges.

"On this forum, extremism is the coin of the realm"

Extremism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extremism)
1. the condition or act of taking an extreme view.
2. the taking of extreme action.
The recording industry wants to and has sued people for millions of dollars for sharing songs online, and wants to take away their internet connections. I'd call that extremist.

Perhaps they'd not resorted to that if graduated response, felony streaming and Protect IP had been in force. What exactly was a more viable alternative to prevent the looting of their intellectual property?

"Really, you guys are PK, CDT, EFF's Tea Baggers".

For someone like me living in a different country than the United States of America, care to explain to me what PK and CDT are?

Don't you have Google where you live? Public Knowledge and Center for Democracy and Technology, like EFF are professional apologists, sponsored by Google and their ilk.

Perhaps you should be more concerned about IP issues in your own country. We can handle this ourselves, thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

PK is Public Knowledge, who our AC believes is his mortal enemy for being an advocate of consumer's rights.

CDT is the Center of Democracy and Technology. Honestly, I never heard of them until Mr. Sunshine mentioned them in his rants. I just researched them as recently as tonight. I don't agree that copyright needs to be balanced between consumer's rights and those of the business sector. Rather, it makes sense to align them both accordingly. I agree with Mike here where he describes the myth of a balance. If both sides are slightly worse off because of a balance, why do it?

Public Knowledge raises awareness around consumer concerns. Right now, they're focusing on the TMobile/AT&T merger, trying to get the FCC to see reason. Yeah...

I fully expect the merger to go through and the commissioners to have a job there in the next few months.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Look at your words that you choose to use.

"Techdirtbags"

"Tea Baggers"

"rabidly zealous, anti-copyright jihadists"

"crazies in the tinfoil hats."

Everyone who understands English understands this as rhetoric which you've been criticized about before. You say that no one is interested in reasoned debate, and we both know that is a false claim. And when anyone points you to research, you dismiss it as yet another nutty study when you have none to back you up. So it seems that there is nothing keeping you from saying what you want. You feel that Protect IP will pass in its current form? We'll just have to see. Meanwhile, I hope eventually you do find something to back you up. Right now, the mountain of evidence is getting higher that PIPA and S978 are more about who's paying you to get laws passed than actual necessity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Jay,

If I cared enough to comb through the TD archives, I'm certain I can find even more inflammatory language from you and/or any number of Masnick's other pet parrots. If you are so thin-skinned, perhaps your delicate sensibilities might be better served over on the Virtual Sewing Circle forum. Personally, I've given up any notion that any reasoned discussion (including those with some harsh words). This,for the most part is merely an echo chamber for anti-copyright extremists. BTW, I love how you support your position with links to more bullshit TD propaganda. Way to build credibility! I don't think Protect IP will pass in it's current form. The House bill is coming and it will be much more favorable to those on my side of the issue. I expect the final bill to be appreciably stronger that the current Senate version of Protect IP.

Right now, the mountain of evidence is getting higher that PIPA and S978 are more about who's paying you to get laws passed than actual necessity.

This is the sort of outlandish nonsense that makes you so dismissible. None of the very few arguments that have any traction include statements that limiting infringement by rogue sites is not a desirable outcome and currently have no negative impact on the entertainment industry. Hence your "necessity" contention has you laughed out of the room.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Oh please. I've criticized you on numerous occasions when you had your account. But I've never risen to the vitriolic status that you seem to use in describing your four archnemesis of Google, CDT, PK, and the EFF. I don't need to. Anyone reading can come to their own conclusions.

BTW, I love how you support your position with links to more bullshit TD propaganda.

Which is exactly what I criticized before where you dismiss any valid research no matter where it comes from, if it doesn't follow your position. BTW, Joe Karaganis has his own website. And the pdf is free. We know that's anathema to you but since Joe Biden is reading it, it might do you well to read it yourself. I also find it funny how you didn't even look at Steve Tepp who has really done well in not answering questions. For a while I thought you would actually like how he mocks people for asking questions about the ACTA.

None of the very few arguments that have any traction include statements that limiting infringement by rogue sites is not a desirable outcome and currently have no negative impact on the entertainment industry.

Funny, you're dodging the fact that there are plenty of studies out saying more copyright law is not making the economy better. I guess the debunking of the 301 report along with even the GAO's piracy report leaves you with little ammo.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

The people you don't represent (the artists and content creators) have already found new ways to make content without copyright as a crutch. Finally, because you missed Joe Karaganis I'm going to quote him here:

The image of foreigners stealing American creative products is, of course, political catnip. What US politician wouldn't get behind measures to stop such behavior? Unfortunately, it is also an unproductive way of understanding, much less addressing, the problem of global media piracy. In the SSRC's three-year, comparative study of piracy in the developing world, our teams came to some different conclusions about piracy's causes and potential solutions. Our explanation, at its core, is very simple: high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy. If piracy is ubiquitous in most parts of the world, it is because these conditions are ubiquitous.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Our explanation, at its core, is very simple: high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy. If piracy is ubiquitous in most parts of the world, it is because these conditions are ubiquitous.

Soooo, you and this numbnuts are making excuses for people unlawfully obtaining copyrighted content because they can't afford it and it's cheap/easy to steal? That's truly remarkable. I'd like to see any defendant in any criminal case use such an outrageous justification. "Yes you Honor, I did it because I only make minimum wage and can't afford to obtain it legally" Are you out of your mind??? There's no moral or legal rationale for that point of view. It's entertainment. No food, not water, not medicine. Just mindless entertainment.

And that's the big disconnect here. You feel so entitled (though you can doubtlessly afford it) you make any excuse, parse any phrase and engage in whatever diversion you can to continue to be able to enjoy the copyrighted creative output of others without paying for it. That is utterly shameful and precisely why people like you are regarded as zealots on the lunatic fringe of the copyright debate.

"Roling Stone" magazine facts...

Here's another spin on the argument: In 9/15/2011 edition of the "Rolling Stone," the author states: "Musicians granted the rights for their master tapes would be able to license their music for advertising, sell it to another label or distribute it themselves digitally via iTunes."

Don Henley is quoted as saying: "It's very simple. We created and paid for these records." Sounds like 'Common Sense' to me. Musicians would then have ultimate control over the ownership, distribution and redistribution of their music. Good music ages like a fine merlot.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Also, Jeff Rowberg has said the same thing. On two occasions.

Who? What sort of expert is he supposed to be? A 26 year old programmer is who you trot out as some sort of authoritative source? Because he made the same stupid assertion twice. Christ, if that's all it takes to be consider a quoteworthy expert by fellow Techdirtbags, then it's no wonder you treat what Masnick says like it came from the Burning Bush. He's the master of saying the same inane, inaccurate horseshit over and over. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Still not gonna read the report eh? Come on, Bucko, you're making yourself look worse. I don't appeal to authority here and all you're doing is throwing around words at this point.

The first question Have you read a report that utterly debunks the position that more enforcement is necessary?

Let's make it interesting. Let's pull up your old question when you had an account. There's more countries than Nigeria, China, and India. But it seems you're more intent on being more trollish than anything else. We both know you're smarter than the words you choose to use.

Second question:
Just more on a personal side note actually...Why do you have a problem with research yet never bring your own?

You have the floor, man. From what it seems to me, you want to run a well funded propaganda campaign, I'm not one to stop you. But it's still sad that you always resort to such sad tactics instead of actually standing by your words in a debate. I say there's more and more evidence collecting every week showing the inaccuracies of more and more copyright enforcement.

If you want copyright to work, you don't need more of it. As said before, you already have the DMCA, the NET Act, along with a ton of case law showing the ineffectiveness of copyright enforcement. You can look at how piracy is confronted in Brazil, causing very high prices on entertainment (as noted by Karaganis) and more people to respond by going to cheaper sources of entertainment. Hell man, most people outside of the US use torrents to gain access to US TV shows. No one has to justify piracy, it happens for the reasons you quoted. So the final question:

When do the corporations learn to compete for consumer's attentions instead of trying to criminalize them?

Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Jay, at the end of the day, the debate with the Techdirtbags doesn't really matter.

Yet, here you are. Strange, that.

Masnick and his hangers-on are all dismissed as ani-copyright jihadists.

I suppose the EFF is just a terrorist group to you, huh?

Felony Streaming.

How you can manage to type that and not have an aneurysm is beyond me. Do you know how computers work? *Think* about what you want to make a felony. Really *think* about what is actually being done. Does that punishment fit the crime?

Graduated response has already been adopted by the ISP's.

That you celebrate the death of "innocent until proven guilty" tells me that your critical thinking skills are lacking, or, I suppose, you could be a politician.

The noose is tightening on the freeloaders.

You vastly underestimate human nature, my friend. The people you consider "freeloaders" are smarter than executives and politicians. They outnumber them. They are driven, not by greed or fear, but by passion. The noose is, no doubt tightening, but you're too deluded to see it's around your neck.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

"Jay, at the end of the day, the debate with the Techdirtbags doesn't really matter."

Yet, here you are. Strange, that.

It's always amusing to see how the tinfoil hat coalition is doing. Occasionally, I pick up a worthwhile comment or two.

"Masnick and his hangers-on are all dismissed as ani-copyright jihadists."

I suppose the EFF is just a terrorist group to you, huh?

No, Masnick and his hangers-on doesn't include EFF. Not sure how that is unclear to you. Anyway, as I said elsewhere Masnick and his coterie Techdirtbags are to EFF et al, as the Teabaggers are to the republicans.

"Felony Streaming."

How you can manage to type that and not have an aneurysm is beyond me. Do you know how computers work? *Think* about what you want to make a felony. Really *think* about what is actually being done. Does that punishment fit the crime?

Obviously you're a bit slower than I imagined. The Felony Streaming Bill simply mirrors the existing penalty for downloading. Back when the law was written, streaming wasn't on the radar.

"Graduated response has already been adopted by the ISP's."

That you celebrate the death of "innocent until proven guilty" tells me that your critical thinking skills are lacking, or, I suppose, you could be a politician.

Reinforcing my earlier stated suspicions about your intellect, you do not seem to understand that "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal law concept regarding the relationship of a criminal defendant to the state. There is no duty by private parties entering into voluntary contracts to embrace such a standard.

"The noose is tightening on the freeloaders."

You vastly underestimate human nature, my friend. The people you consider "freeloaders" are smarter than executives and politicians. They outnumber them. They are driven, not by greed or fear, but by passion. The noose is, no doubt tightening, but you're too deluded to see it's around your neck.

Perhaps you should read about the impact of enforcement in S. Korea. The passion for freeloading seems be have been substantially displaced by the passion for legitimate sources of content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

"There is no duty by private parties entering into voluntary contracts to embrace such a standard. "

Umm, yes there is. I pay my ISP for an internet connection and according to law, they must give me one, barring power outages or such events beyond anyone's control. Now you want a third party (copyright holders) to accuse me of infringing and for me to potentially lose my internet connection. The ISP can't know that what I down/upload is infringing. The copyright holders can and will lie.

Case in point. In case you've missed it, one result of Youtube's existence has been people creating video reviews of pretty much anything. One of my favourites is a guy who calls himself SFDebris. He reviews science-fiction shows such as Star Trek, Star Wars and Farscape, among others. What's unique about him compared to other reviewers I've seen, is that he reviews episodes, while others will do a video on the entire series as a whole. A few months ago, he was accused of copyright infringement by the BBC and Viacom, for Doctor Who and Star Trek respectively. A third accusation would have lost his account. He was pretty careful to stay within fair use laws, limiting his videos to show clips of the episode he was reviewing and parodying (which are allowed activities under law). Yet, a third FALSE accusation would have suspended his account, and deprived me and thousands of his fans of his work.
In fact, these actions by the BBC have confirmed my decision not to get involved in the Dr. Who franchise in any way. Since they're being so evil about it, I will not watch the show. That's one potential dedicated fan they lost, and this can be proven, unlike when copyright holders say "One download = one lost sale" (I've downloaded tons of copyrighted material I already had on disc, or I purchased it afterward).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

"There is no duty by private parties entering into voluntary contracts to embrace such a standard. "

Umm, yes there is. I pay my ISP for an internet connection and according to law, they must give me one, barring power outages or such events beyond anyone's control.

Ummmm, no there isn't. You're bound by the TOS; which doesn't include "innocent until proven guilty" or anything remotely close to that. Perhaps you can have a fellow Techdirtbag who hasn't had a break with reality affirm that for you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

"Jay, at the end of the day, the debate with the Techdirtbags doesn't really matter. No one voting on these matters gives a shit what you think because Masnick and his hangers-on are all dismissed as ani-copyright jihadists."

So why are you and your partners here then? Dismiss us and move on. Is that too simple? Or are you lying(Pull your head out of your ass so I can see if your lips are moving or not)?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

"Jay, at the end of the day, the debate with the Techdirtbags doesn't really matter. No one voting on these matters gives a shit what you think because Masnick and his hangers-on are all dismissed as ani-copyright jihadists."

So why are you and your partners here then? Dismiss us and move on. Is that too simple? Or are you lying(Pull your head out of your ass so I can see if your lips are moving or not)?

Believe what you like. The only people on the Hill that assert anything like the fanciful drivel that comes from the Techdirtbag choir is Oregon senator Ron Wyden and Zoe Lofgren, (D-Google).

What percentage of infringers have the technical acumen or desire to pursue these workarounds? Infringement is so widespread precisely because of the simplicity and low risk. If Protect IP was so ineffective, then why are all of the apologists and freeloaders running around like their hair is on fire?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

I don't know any to ask, but I have heard many MSers' mentioning a "hosts" file, whatever that is. It was being used as extra security, I believe, for MSers'. Loving linux, I didn't pay much attention.

Foxyproxy and MAFIAAFIRE are Firefox plug-ins. I suspect if they were smart enough to avoid IE, they can figure out how to add an add-on. Many switch because of the add-ons.

If all they want is free free free then I suspect they can do a google search and learn how to use these tools.
Especially if it saves them $1 920 000. That is plenty of desire right there. RIAA is putting the incentives in place.

You may wish to re-read the article and comments to see why their hair is on fire.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Once more: because I'm paying for this idiocy. I don't like to see my taxes go to waste to prop up dying companies/industries/associations that need to lie about their motives and means to survive beyond their expiration dates.

Want to be a free-market monkey? Then live with death. Don't go asking the government to save your bacon. And yes, this applies to all industries and all bailouts--which this bill plainly is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

For clarity's sake, I was refering to the technical accumen and desire is a post Protect IP/felony Streaming/Six Strikes world. You made my point rather eloquently, look how easy it is for the millions of Fox fans who'd rater view a show unlawfully than wait a week.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: some of the facts

Seeing as how Michael D Smith has already said the same thing would occur close to a year ago, I fail to see how this is a win for you. It just proves that everyone knows what's going to happen in the digital field better than the older, more entrenched media outlets.

Basically, people will learn what they need to, law be damned, in order to watch their show. Offer better legal options than pirates and people are willing to spend their time with what you offer. Don't offer better benefits than the pirates then they'll use those options.

Mr Henley please take it easy and don't come across as a desperado. You're not alone in the city and you have already taken music business to the limit. Music business is no more walk in the woods. I don't want to hear more from you. I can't tell you why.

Ok, so on one hand Don Henley is a douche. That is a given. Even people who are on the other side of the argument will agree with everybody here on that. I realy want to disagree with him here, just because, well, fuck Don Henley.

On the other hand, isn't one of the main aguments that this site makes that artists should make their living from live shows?, even if that means raising ticket prices. So why the paragraph insulting him for high ticket prices?. Should concerts also be free?. Should only t-shirts and merchandise be valid income, or once that becomes too expensive will that be villified also?.
Face it, the only people going to see Don Henley in concert are douchie yuppies with too much money any way. Why be offended that he is overcharging them?. If some hipocritical 70's reject wan't to thow their pilfered goods away on a concert that doesn't even have Joe fucking Walsh, why bother protecting them from that?.

There appears to be political opposition over the pending legislation piece "PROTECT IP bill". Still, Henley has
the P.R. savy to educate voter advocates on actual knowledge, and well-grounded name-brand appeal, of
this cause. Bottom line, he is again protecting artists' rights, and specifically music copyright violations and intellectual property, on a grande scale."Beauty is Truth" and Mr. Henley has time-tested perseverence to stay prove
truth for his cause.

As a USA voting citizen, who is passionate about original music, sometimes, it's is hard to gain political support from congressional members who don't understand the music industry. The same hold true for other pieces of 'unfamiliar',pending legislation.